Europeanization of turkish subnational administrations

4.5. CONCLUSION

Of perhaps more immediate relevance for the purposes of this chapter, developments within the EU have been considered as a significant factor stimulating the interests of SNAs to establish direct relations with the EU institutions in Brussels. Recent years have witnessed an increased recognition of the importance of territorial politics in Europe, and also of the complexities of the subject (Keating, 2006: 153). What has commonly been agreed by a number of scholars is that developments throughout the integration process have advanced the changing nature and growing importance of SNAs’ activities in Europe over the last four decades. These developments supporting the state of SNAs in the EU member (and candidate) states include: the completion of the internal market; the revised treaties of the Single European Act and Maastricht; the subsequent reforms of cohesion policy and structural funds; the launch of the principles of partnership, additionality and subsidiarity; the creation of the Committee of Regions; and right to attend the Ministry of Council meetings for some privileged regions. These developments have presented new opportunities for SNAs and therefore they are generally deemed as a major driving force behind the promotion of multi-level governance (Hooghe & Keating, 2006).

The chapter has also explored the argument of whether the financial incentives and the principle of partnership have had a significant impact on the development of multi-level governance in member and applicant states. Despite the stimulation with the partnership principle since 1988, national governments have in fact remained effective gatekeepers and allowed public and private, regional and local interests to participate in the regional policy-making process but not more than that. In this respect, multi-level participation should not be confused with the multi-level governance (Bailey & DePropis, 2004; Bache, 2008; Allen, 2008). As regards the situation for the SNAs from the new member and candidate states, although the Commission has attempted to shift them towards a system of multi-level governance in relation to structural policy, the Commission (particularly after the IPA regulations) sent mixed signals and national governments quickly learned their gatekeeping role (Bailey & De Propis, 2004).

The form of subnational mobilisation and the channels where SNAs are able to contact the EU institutions and their activities in Brussels have also been outlined. As a result of these developments in the integration process, the multiplication of access points and the ongoing enlargement process, a large number of SNAs both from member and candidate states have sought to engage with the multi-level polity and to affect the EU-decision making process on their behalf. All of the channels illustrated above suggest that engagement with the supranational institutions and networks has gone hand in hand with SNAs’ integration with the Europeanization process. Even if some constitutionally and administratively strong SNAs have mobilized across the EU arena through different channels, they are no more effective individually in relation to influencing EU governance than they are collectively within the CoR or other relevant interregional organizations in Brussels.

What has been revealed from the literature search is that SNAs are not equally mobilized and there is a variation in their engagement with the EU institutions. While some SNAs have used the multiple channels and established large offices in Brussels, others have used comparatively limited channels. The research therefore proposed four stages of subnational mobilisation to reveal the different levels of subnational engagement with EU matters. True, subnational mobilisation is uneven across the member and candidate states and their participation in the multi-level system of EU governance. This raises the important question: What may explain the variation in their engagement with the EU institutions? Scholars again largely address the domestic—national and subnational—level as a source of variation.

All things considered, the broader debate regarding the EU’s regional policy initiatives and its related fund mechanisms offers both opportunities and challenges. It is not overstatement to suggest that cohesion policy and its main financial instruments (structural funds, IPA for Turkey) provide the most useful and appropriate ‘empirical lenses’ through which to observe the interplay between Europeanization and subnational mobilisation at the EU level. In the remainder of the thesis, the creation of multi-level governance in one of the applicant states, Turkey, will be discussed by giving a particular emphasis on the issue of subnational mobilisation. However, to understand the extent to which Turkish SNAs are able to exploit these opportunities and deal with the challenges, one should take a close look at the domestic context. The next chapter therefore turns its attention to the Turkish domestic context.

CHAPTER 5 DOMESTIC CONTEXT OF SUBNATIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS IN TURKEY

5.1. INTRODUCTION

The message in the previous chapters is clear: Irrespective of the main motive(s) for changing territorial relations in any particular state—e.g. the pull factor of the EU opportunity structures, the push factors of the certain organizational capabilities or the sociological approach of learning—the nuance lies fundamentally in the domestic details. Therefore, the degree and nature of subnational mobilisation beyond the national jurisdictions are largely conditional on domestic institutions and practices (Hooghe, 1995: 177). For instance, motivations behind subnational mobilisation beyond the national setting should be first accommodated in national histories, political cultures, and institutional and legal contexts. Once the power balances and administrative cultures are institutionalized in a given domestic setting, they are difficult to change because of the path dependent character of such an administrative system.

The research does not simply take the domestic context for granted in a way that solely explains subnational mobilisation. Rather, it argues that national institutions and subnational contexts define important intermediating variables but still do not determine the ultimate outcome. An example of such an assertion may be observed in the establishment of liaison offices in Brussels. Despite the fact that there is no legislative right (unless they obtain permission from the national authorities) for SNAs to open their offices in different foreign countries, two offices (Istanbul and Yalova) were established in Brussels by circumventing the law (i.e. acting via their affiliate companies or NGOs). This suggests that as far as a proactive SNA is determined to embark on any kind of international activity, they may find the necessary means without waiting for the consent from the national government (see Chapter 8). This is a critical difference between intermediating factors and independent variables of the research. While the former may shape, obstruct or facilitate subnational mobilisation, the latter may determine the outcomes.

This chapter is designed to throw light on the intermediating factors in the domestic context in Turkey. The primary aim therefore is to examine the political, historical, legal and institutional culture of SNAs from a historical perspective before the detailed case studies of the thesis. This will furnish some clues to the present obstacles to and/or incentives for SNAs mobilizing in the European arena. To analyse the extent to which the domestic context shapes, facilitates or inhibits the mobilisation of SNAs outside the national jurisdiction, the chapter is organized in four parts. The first part outlines the territorial and constitutional framework. The second part presents key historical developments and actors/institutions that are involved in the regional/local governance system in Turkey. The third part examines the subnational context and politics and presents the three intermediating factors: regional distinctiveness, the quality of intergovernmental relations and the existence of a territorial network. The final part concludes and summarizes the main discussion in the chapter.